Thing is, even with this challenge he is being dishonest. A "minitrial" is nothing more than a debate with a facilitator. When you're being deceitful right off the bat it's hard for anyone to take this nonsense seriously.

But hey - when you're so desperate to be considered legitimate, I guess you have to resort to acting like a barker in a circus. I can't imagine Tyson or even Randi taking this clown seriously. And when no one accepts this ridiculous challenge, he'll hop up on his soapbox and claim some sort of legitimacy.

What I found more alarming was the article pointing out that almost 50 percent of Americans believe in creationism. Yikes!

E.

Logged

'O pitiful shadow lost in the darkness,Bringing torment and pain to others. O damned soul wallowing in your sin.Perhaps it is time to die?'

Mastropaolo said he would present the argument in favor of a literal interpretation of the creation story once he had found a willing scientist to argue that a non-literal interpretation of Genesis is more scientific.

So whoever takes him on, has to argue for a more liberal interpretation of Genesis; not that Genesis is garbage from start to finish.

The next problem is that the Yahwist/Elohimic creation myth appears in two versions, as does the story of The Flood. This, in itself, prevents a literal interpretation.

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Dr Joseph Mastropaolo, who says he has set up the contest, the Literal Genesis Trial, in the hope of improving the quality of arguments between creationists and evolutionists, has pledged to put $10,000 of his own money into an escrow account before the debate. His competitor would be expected to do the same. The winner would take the $20,000 balance.

I wonder who he expects to take the challenge?

For that matter, I wonder if he hopes that no one will take the challenge, and claim victory by default.

I tend to think potential opponents would be wise to think for a while before taking him on. I suspect that this is going to be rigged to some extent, be it on the basis that there is not that much of a consistent story in Genesis due to the multiple strands and a variety of interpretations that the guy could use.

Even though he would claim victory if no one challenges him, it would be safer way to go, I think.

The he could do the proper think - submit his case to a peer reviewed journal though this mini-trial is probably because no sefl-respecting journal would print his piece!

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

For that matter, I wonder if he hopes that no one will take the challenge, and claim victory by default.

That's probably it. People can knock down his claims and arguments all they want, and he'll just boast that if they were so sure, they'd "put their money where their mouth is."

The James Randi Foundation continues to offer its $1 million reward for any verifiable proof of the supernatural. And they don't ask anyone to put up any money, just prove their claims. Randi has been offering this reward in growing amounts since 1964. Few takers, no winners yet.

The James Randi Foundation continues to offer its $1 million reward for any verifiable proof of the supernatural. And they don't ask anyone to put up any money, just prove their claims. Randi has been offering this reward in growing amounts since 1964. Few takers, no winners yet.

Yeah, plus the fact that in terms of logic, the onus is on the person who asserts a thing to be true...

In a criminal trial, the onus is on the prosecution to prove Col. Mustard killed Miss Scarlet with the Candlestick in the Conservatory. The defense then tries to poke holes in the prosecution's logic so as to cast doubt upon the theory. But the defense doesn't necessarily need to prove that Col. Mustard did not kill Miss Scarlet.

In science, the onus is to prove that some element exists or that some process works according to a certain law. Opposing scientists then critique the paper that supposedly proves the theory. They just have to show flaws in the theory, they don't have to prove the exact opposite of the theory.

So by framing the question so as to prove that Genesis isn't true, he's trying to load the dice.

At the end of the classic grade Z scifi-horror film 'Plan 9 From Outer Space,' the psychic Crisswell provides a spoken epilogue for the incredible events, and challenges the audience with this line: 'Can you prove it didn't happen?!?!'

It would be more honest and useful for the creationist to show his scientific evidence that Genesis is literally true. Then real scientists can analyze his evidence and everyone lcould learn something--even if only how the scientific method works.

But no creationist is going to do this, because they don't understand science, don't have any scientific evidence, and are afraid of real scientists.

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

At the end of the classic grade Z scifi-horror film 'Plan 9 From Outer Space,' the psychic Crisswell provides a spoken epilogue for the incredible events, and challenges the audience with this line: 'Can you prove it didn't happen?!?!'

I'm not sure Joseph Mastropaolo would like being compared to Ed Wood. But I do I was pleased to see the movie rereleased in color on DVD.

Oh, that guy? He'll never pay. And even if he does, eventually, it just might be easier (and more wortwhile) to work a second job instead.Also, I want the judge to be picked randomly out of a list of volunteers without any knowledge of either evolutionary biology or christian theology.

Logged

"Deferinate" itself appears to be a new word... though I'm perfectly carmotic with it.-xphobe